I don't know but I would like to think that an iRacing top player would have no problem translating its learned skills over the real Nurburgring, even if that track does not exist in the game. And I don't mean breaking lap records, just staying safe on the track. I have read that some of the Forza crashes were in the first lap.
Can you post a direct link that shows that Forza players have more accidents at the 'ring that users of any other sim.
I posted a while ago a link that covered this exact factor with regard to Simraceway and a track a driver had never been on before and it does make a difference. That and the links I provided with regard to 'Playstation Heros' kind of cover this already.
I have finally addressed the email problem that would not let me post with my main account, you can cancel "Zr0".
Done
I mean right in the sense of being conected with the car and road throught the feedback of the wheel, the only real physical link between the simulation and the player.
So you have no problem with feedback that should not be felt via a wheel (and therefore causing issues with how the cars handle) being present.
I disagree about the GT Academy, I don't mean physics but the overall driving model. If GT5 would not doing some thing right the Academy would be a mess specially with the real car tests. Most of the finalists are just GT players with no much or not track experience. I don't mean the best of the pack or the winners.
What PD are doing with the academy could be replicated with any half way descent sim, as such its not GT5 that is producing these drivers its the selection process and training they undergo (and mainly the latter).
You are also once again forgetting that once you get to the final selection, GT5 goes out the window in real terms. If they do it and the final winner goes straight from GT5 to a race (or race licence test) then you might have a point.
It's not like 2.0 becomes another game. GT updates refine things but does not change the way that the game is played. Same way as an upgraded car can be feel or communicate better than a stock.
2.0 changed how the cars behaved in some quite significant ways, that is a point agreed by just about everyone with time on both versions. Its certainly a big enough change to question that video being used as proof of GT5's accuracy.
Its also nothing like modification a real car, that does nothing to change how physics work, which is exactly what PD did with 2.0.
Magazines most times are big adverts, usually most info in their test and setups are omited and the results become vague and "friendly" to the readers, publishers and players. I prefer to filter that when I'm looking for some real proof of sim learning translated to the real world.
That depends on the magazine in question and the points you raised with regard to Evo were all addressed (and Evo is not a publication known for bias).
Its also odd that you disregard magazines because of potential bias but will willingly accept just about any youtube clip, all of which carry the exact same risk of bias.
What you seem to filter for is what supports your argument, no major issue with that everyone does it to a degree, however when straight up physics gets dismissed or misrepresented (and in the Self aligning torque diagram) that is an issue.
I know that no game is going to replace the real thing but some of them are betters than others to develop muscle memory and to learn tracks, specially with steering wheels, no aids, etc. No one is going to drive as fast for real just with the game experience except no brain people. As I said there are lot of vids and examples in GTP. In the same vid:
A lot of examples exist for every sim, this has already been done to death, none of them 'prove' anything.
At best you get a very rough idea of how a track is laid out, you certainly don't gain any muscle memory from any sim (the exact nature of the feedback, resistance, etc are totally different regardless of how much money you have dropped on a home rig).
"I don't say it's possible to drive a real car fast there just by practicing on GT5 but it's very similar how each corner looks like or where I need to aim for entry and exit. I didn't lose many laps just to learn the course and was able to drive the cars at decent pace from the beginning thanks to GT5, I have to say "
Did you bother to follow the second link I posted? As that claim is quite firmly rebuted by someone with a significant degree of experience at the 'ring (far more than the person who made the video).
B2G
Well, somebody sent me the video below - as an argument that PS3 learning does work. I 100% disagree.
This video shows me nothing but a guy who's one step away from paying an €8000 insurance excess and buying at least €2500 of barriers at the same time. The only thing that saves his ass is the 'secret weapon'... yep, I met this chap and his kamikaze helmet at Rent4Ring. Read the video description and you'll see he drove our Swift Stage 2 the day before this video. Then he <cough> upgraded to the BMW 325i above*. I believe he admitted to being a tyre tester for a large manufacturer, certainly his car control is great.
But his track knowledge is dangerously poor. Check out the early entry at 7m20s... he catches the notorious crest and camber change just wrong and AT SPEED. Put 9/10 average tourist session drivers in that slide and the red lights would be on before you could say "Attention, attenion! Zee track ist now closed. Please return to your parking places!"
My point is its not the professional driver in him that's making him enter the corners too fast; it's the illusion that he has 'learnt' the track already!
Anyway, if he really had 'learnt' the track with the PS3 then he'd be going at least 30-seconds per lap faster. And he's not. Even with his 'skillz'. I rest my case.
*an upgrade which would be more understandable if he wasn't going slower in the 325i than we actually go in the little Swifts!
Source -
http://www.bridgetogantry.com/2/index.php/home/touristenfahrten/324-playstation-heroes-part-2
That would seem to be quite a different take on how much of an advantage GT5 was for the guy in your video (and it is your video that he is discussing).
What are in your opinion the flaws in the GT5 physics that make the experience broke in a real track? or the worst are the ones common to all the sims because the lack of the physical car and track feedback or a real conection that some people seem to adapt partially with the help of FF steering wheels?
I've already covered the issues all sims have with regard to track comparisons, so will focus on GT5. The two biggest issues it has are the tyre model (which is by far the biggest issue) and suspension modeling.
The former I have covered in detail in the Tyre thread I linked to.
I don't have any problem to discuss flaws, is just that sometimes I see these discussions biased and exagerated when GT5 is the target. Forza players like to put a lot of force and time to convince others of how flawed is GT5. GT players don't care so much about exposing and investigate forza flaws and that make an unbalanced view of the sides, so some people end with funny conclusions.
Sorry but I disagree, this thread kicked back off again because of an inaccurate comment with regard to FM4 and steering resistance, with GT5 being used as the 'benchmark' rather than reality. Most of the FM4 issues die of quickly because people tend to acknowledge them (if they are genuine), however GT5 issues need, on occasion, to be proved to a level that is quite clearly daft before they get accepted (not helped by the two issues I mentioned above). The flaws with the tyre model are a good example of this, you still find people claiming that GT5 models deformation (not visually) despite not a shred of evidence that shows it and a large body of evidence that counters it (grip multipliers). Yet mention that FM4 doesn't model longitudinal tyre deformation (only lateral and to a lesser degree vertical) and I don't think you will get anyone argue.
I've seen members try and prove that cars in GT5 can torque steer from a standstill using a car so modified and with bizarre gear ratios that it was undrivable the rest of the time, all it proved was that PD have an issue is this area and if you nerf a car enough you can get it moving a little and then torque steering (oh and you had to launch in third gear). That you can't take a stock car and do it was a point constantly ignored in favour of an exploit to nerf a car (and the member was very misleading through out - requiring the fact the car was modified to be dragged out of them). Its situations like this that exasperate a lot of us who simply want to discuss physics in an accurate manner and with the correct reference point (reality).
However I will give you an opportunity to redress the balance, I have linked to a list of the issues I feel GT5 and FM4 both have in regard to physics, How about you post up a list for both and we can discuss them (please however keep it to physics - that is after all the topic of the thread).
